WATT v. USA

Filing 10

ORDER of Dismissal granting 7 Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas C. Wheeler. (dls) Copy to parties.

ORIgINAL
lln

tbe

@nrte! btuttg [.ourt of ftdtrut @lufmg
No. 13-528C

lFiled: November 25. 2013)
+ i! {.,1

*****

+

***

{. +

**

ri.

*

*.

*

*'1.

:t(

x

1i

i,

**

i( :}

* * *,t *

r(

FILED

{(

:i

MYRTLE WATT,

*

Plaintiff,

"

NO\/ 2

5

2013

U.,

-HT OF
FED*,,,... CLAIMS

THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
,i

rr r! r! *.

*

'*

*

*****{.

{.

*

rr

r.:t

{<t<*i.t(r.:l.t(t({.***,k'l*XX

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On September 27,2013, counsel for the Government filed a motion to dismiss pro
se Plaintiff Myrtle Watt's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On October
30,2013, Ms. Watt filed her response, and on November 18, 2013, the Govemment filed
its reply. In its motion, the Govemment argues that because Ms. Watt's claim against the
Department of Veterans Affairs is for the denial of veterans' benefits, this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate her case. Def.'s Mot. 3. For the reasons set forth
below, the Government's motion to dismiss is granted.
Subject matter jurisdiction is defined as a court's "statutory or constitutional
power to adjudicate the case." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't' 523 U.S. 83, 89
(1998). Thus, the existence ofsubject matter jurisdiction must first be established before
a court can consider the merits of a complaint. Id. at 94-95. If a court determines that it
lacks such jurisdiction, then it must dismiss the action. Rules of the Court of Federal
Clairns ("RCFC') l2(h)(3).
The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction. Jentoft v. United
States,450F.3d1342, 1349(Fed.Cir.2006)(citingUnitedStatesv.King,395U.S. 1,3
(1969)). This jurisdiction derives from the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. $ 1491, which both
gives this Court 'Jurisdiction over specified types of claims against the United States"
and "constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to those claims." United

States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206,212 (1983). However, "because the Tucker Act itself
does not create a substantive cause of action, 'in order to come within the jurisdictional
reach and the waiver of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identiff a separate source of
substantive law that creates the right to money damages."' Jan's Helicopter Serv. v.
F.A.A., 525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Fisher v. United States ' 402 F.3d
1167 , ll72 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). In other words, this Court would have the authority to
consider Ms. Watt's claim only if her claim were based on a law that requires the
Government to pay money damages. If the law does not require the payment of such
damages, then this Court does not have the power to decide her case.

Ms. Watt's only claim is for her deceased father's unpaid veterans' benefits. See
Compl. l; Pl.'s Resp. 1(citing 38 U.S.C. $5121; 38 C.F.R. $3.152(b)' However,
entitlement to veterans' benefits is distinctly different from a claim for money damages.
Veterans' benefits are "entitlements [awarded] to a special class of citizens, those who
risked harm to serve and defend their country." Barrett v. Nicholson,466 F.3d 1038,
1044 (Fed. Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Damages, on the other hand,
are the sum of money paid by a defendant for its wrongful conduct. See generally
Mansfield v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (discussing the difference between
veterans' benefits and money damages). Although the Court of Federal Claims has
authority to consider certain suits to recover damages from the Govemment, it "has
repeatedly held that it has no jurisdiction to hear claims for denial of veterans' benefits."
Smalls v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 300, 306 (2009) (intemal quotation marks omitted).
Instead, a proper appeal would be made first to the Board of Veterans Appeals, then to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and finally to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit. Id. At no point in this process does the Court of Federal Claims
play a role. Id.

dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs
complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction'
Accordingly, Defendant's motion
IT IS SO ORDERED.

to

fr*,c /P*k
THOMAS C. WHEELER
Judge